1. The part of the judgment below on the defendant is reversed.

2. The Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

3. Defendants:

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request with respect to the part of the case of the defendant and the part of the case of the case of the attachment order claim, and there is no benefit of appeal with respect to the part of the case of the attachment order claim.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event of the instant case, the victim had a mental disability that prevents him from exercising his right to sexual self-determination, thereby making it impossible or difficult to resist.

subsection (b) of this section.

Even if the injured person was unable to resist or resist due to his mental disability, the injured person was in a difficult state to resist or resist.

Even if the Defendants did not know that the victim was in such a state and agreed with the victim, only the Defendant was in a sexual relationship.

However, the court below found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case that the Defendants had sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the fact that the victim was unable to resist or resist due to mental disability. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and on this basis, the lower court explained in detail the circumstances as indicated in its holding under the title of “Determination on whether the crime of quasi-rape against the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is established” and based on this reasoning.